DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 14 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12344249 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-36 and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 11364910 B1 according to the following mapping table:
Instant Application (19/235504)
Conflicting Patent (US 11364910 B1)
21
1
22
6
23
7
24
13
25
17
26
2
27
3
28
5
29
8
30
9
31
11
32
12
33
14
34
16
35
1
36
18
38
19
39
20
40
21
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the corresponding claims of the conflicting patent.
MPEP 804(II)(B): “A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12344249 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application is anticipated by the corresponding claim of the conflicting patent.
MPEP 804(II)(B): “A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al. (US 2022/0219736 A1) generally teaches:
In one embodiment, an emergency vehicle detection system can be provided in the ADV travelling on a road to detect the presence of an emergency vehicle in a surrounding environment of the ADV using both audio data and visual data. The emergency vehicle detection system can use a trained neutral network to independently generate a detection result from the audio data, and use another trained network to independently generate another detection result from the visual data. The emergency vehicle detection system can fuse the two detection results to determine the position and moving direction of the emergency vehicle. The ADV can take appropriate actions in response to the position and moving direction of the emergency vehicle.
Balachandran (US 12406577 B2) generally teaches:
One example system for detecting an emergency siren comprises a microphone device, a band pass filter operably coupled to the microphone device and configured to filter sound data from the microphone device to produce filtered sound data, a phase lock loop circuit configured to phase filter the filtered sound data to produce phase filtered data, and a processor configured to determine a presence of a siren signal from the phase filtered data.
Chebiyyam et al. (US 2021/0302988 A1) generally teaches:
Techniques for determining information associated with sounds detected in an environment based on audio data and map data or perception data are discussed herein. A vehicle can use map data and/or perception data to distinguish between multiple audio signals or sounds. A direct source of sound can be distinguished from a reflected source of sound by determining a direction of arrival of sounds and which objects the directions of arrival are associated with in the environment. A reflected sound can be received without receiving a direct sound. Based on the reflected sound and map data or perception data, characteristics of sound in an occluded region of the environment may be determined and used to control the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights